3 ms·

> That is a dramatical difference and this would be a valid argument in a court of law What are you talking about? > Why would anyone put their faith in it?

by dahart 5y ago

> That is a dramatical difference and this would be a valid argument in a court of law What are you talking about? > Why would anyone put their faith in it? They need money, maybe? Because software developers are, by and large, employed (not to mention paid well)? Because the economy is functioning? I don't understand what you're suggesting, what is the alternative to interviewing? What do you want fixed? Why are you coming down hard on me for suggesting that not being allowed to Google the answer to your interview question isn't a serious problem that needs solving? How would you hire people if you had a company? What does trust have to do with interviewing? Does one need to have trust in order to get a job? Do you have a job? Aside from cultural bias, what are examples of the system breaking trust in large numbers that demonstrate that hiring is "broken"? Where is the data that shows this? Since you want to talk about trust, why should a company trust your or your claim of being qualified for a job without asking you to demonstrate you're qualified, in a time-bound and resource-bound setting? The interview questions you called "silly tasks" are nothing more than a request to demonstrate a very small amount of your claimed education and ability. Is that unreasonable? Why or why not?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"What are you talking about?" The following statement is not very convincing: "maybe hiring is broken up when it comes to culture, gender, race, personal connections and class, but when it comes to programming tests, we certainly have it right" Mistakes in other areas indicate mistakes are very likely in this area. Parallel with courts was meant to illustrate that "They need money, maybe?" If thsts the only reason, they won't put their faith in it, they will game the system to the maximum possible degree. I think what we are doing in this industry is idiotic, we do not ask surgeons to do a 30-minute surgery on a dog to test their skills in surgery on people, we do not ask structural engineers to make a bridge out of matchsticks to test their skill. Maybe we need qualifications that can actually be trusted, thats one possible solution.
- dahart 5y ago
  > Then they won't put their faith in it, they will game the system to the maximum possoble degree. Hence the request to demonstrate basic proficiency? You seem to be inventing reasons to criticize and argue with me about subjects that neither I nor the article I responded to brought up. I didn't claim that programming tests are "right", so this is like your 4th straw man in a row. You don't seem to be answering any questions about how to improve the situation. Aside from bias, you haven't yet demonstrated a problem with hiring from the company side or the candidate side that has data to back it up. What would you do to improve your perceived imperfections in the interview and hiring process? > I think what we are doing in this industry is idiotic, we do not ask surgeons to do a 30-minute surgery on a dog to test their skills in surgery on people, we do not ask structural engineers to make a bridge out of matchsticks to test their skill. This comment makes it seem like you are ignorant of and not even remotely aware of what the qualifications and interviews are like in other fields, and how much worse and more difficult they are than software. Surgeons go through years of low paid residency, and accreditation, and they suffer a whole battery of knowledge based tests where they're not allowed to Google the answer. Same for structural engineering. The fields of surgery and structural engineering both have cultural bias problems, just like software.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    I do have data: I and a friend of mine have refused to do coding tests. It was really funny because frequently hiring folks start acting as if I insulted him. And we could still find a job, and it's not overrun by idiots or incompetents. The standards are not 'lower' and the company does not perform worse or pay worse. So why can we hire a doctor without asking him to transplant a dog's kidgey during an interview, but not a developer?
    - dahart 5y ago
      > So why can we hire a doctor without asking him to transplant a dog's kidgey during an interview, but not a developer? This is false. Your assertion that doctors don't perform in order to demonstrate their qualifications is wrong. They do have to perform multiple dissections and surgeries before they can get hired anywhere. > I do have data: I and a friend... That's not data, that's personal experience. Your "data" is proving my point that coding tests aren't causing a hiring problem. Last chance, third time I'm asking: what would you do to fix it?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Firstly, this is extremely condecending. But Third time I am answering: have trustworthy qualifications. But you ignore most of what i write, and provide no evidence to support your position that this charade of hiring actually achieves what you think it does, so at this point I no longer believe you are debating in good faith
- dahart 5y ago
  You didn't start this argument in good faith, you started with a straw man and then added several more. You have also misquoted me and ignored most of what I wrote. > have trustworthy qualifications. This doesn't answer the question. People already have trustworthy qualifications, so this solves nothing. Your own point proves your answer wrong: people will game the system. You're contradicting yourself. Doctors and structural engineers achieve trustworthy qualifications by doing a 4 year residency / apprenticeship program after their degree. Is that what you want in software? You would prefer years of supervised and low paid work rather than spend a total of a few days of your life doing easy coding tests?
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    So trustworthy qualifications solve nothing and we already have them, except we don't and they do solve the issue for structural engineers and doctors as you pointed out exactly they are more trustworthy than anything we have in software. For the fourth time, yes, thats exactly what I want. Having two years of supervised work would dramatically improve this industry But i am the one arguing in bad faith.
    - dahart 5y ago
      > For the fourth time, yes, thats exactly what I want. Having two years of supervised work would dramatically improve this industry You do see that this is the first time you've mentioned in this thread spending time (years!) on a certification process apart from school, right? I've re-read all the text above and can't find the other three times that you answered my question with anything concrete. What problem, exactly, does this solve? > So trustworthy qualifications solve nothing and we already have them, except we don't and they do solve the issue for structural engineers and doctors as you pointed out exactly they are more trustworthy than anything we have in software. I feel like you're not being either clear or fair with your jumping between talking about interview process and certification process for other fields. Maybe I'm not being clear either. Let's be more clear. When I said we already have trustworthy qualifications, I was talking about school degrees, because that is the primary thing we have in software. In your reply here, you are conflating apprenticeship programs (doctor's qualifications) with school degrees (software developer's qualifications). School degrees, unfortunately, while they are trustworthy in what they provide, are not providing a guarantee that an applicant is fit for industry work. That's what an apprenticeship program does. Again, like above, the issue is not one of trust. The issue is what the qualification is qualifying, and what the hiring company wants to see. Ultimately, I'd rather do a few easy coding tests when I change jobs than have to spend 2-4 years in some kind of certification program. People who have to do certification programs complain all the time that the work is bureaucratic and jumping through hoops and irrelevant to their eventual jobs. And, certification programs have not solved the only concrete reason you've cited as a hiring problem: cultural bias. Be careful what you wish for.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]